m92 frozen, how to reset?

[Defenderland]

Originally Posted by tuxor

In the first six months of Gewährleistung burden of proof is on the reseller's side. In the second part of those two years it's the other way round.

Nope. What counts for the customer is, that the seller has to proove it, if the unit is under "Garantie". The 6 months were extended long ago to 12 months for new products, btw. And ofcourse a producer can increase the "Garantie". It is not limited to 6 months. See Hyundai or KIA with 5 or 7 years of "Garantie" - not "Gewährleistung".

And if the producer or the reseller has to carry the costs is not of interest for us customers and also not for the poor user "focus" with his defective unit.

What is important for him and therefore i wrote my comment:
He has a defective unit that was purchased only 2 months ago as NEW. This means, the seller has to proove the mistreatment of the unit on behalf of the customer or otherwise solve the problem.

[tuxor]

You are simply wrong about the word Garantie and about the 12 months. I posted the links to the §§ 437 and 476 and as far as I know you understand German ;-)

But your last paragraph is of course still right:

He has a defective unit that was purchased only 2 months ago. This means, the seller has to proove his mistreatment of the unit or otherwise solve the problem.

[Defenderland]

Originally Posted by tuxor

You are simply wrong about the word Garantie and about the 12 months. I posted the links to the §§ 437 and 476 and as far as I know you understand German ;-)

That's correct. Sorry.

[Booxtor]

Originally Posted by Defenderland

That's correct. Sorry.

Guys, did you read my post here?

I just repeat the main thing again - broken/crashed glass screens are not covered by any kind of warranty.
I hope it is comprehensible.

[tuxor]

Still, there is no evidence that the glass was not already broken when focus bought the device. The case is different for Ipads where damages to the glass surface are immediately evident because the whole glass surface is always visible without disassembling the device. But in this case from the photos there is no doubt that - if the defect is because of broken glass - it could have been broken or in a bad state from the beginning. If you can't proof the contrary you can't simply invoke the "tradition" that broken glass is never treated as warranty case. This is no legal argument.

By the way, you still have to proof that the glass was already broken before focus handed it over to the parcel service. Since the crack is not in the visible part of the screen the display could have been broken before the glass cracked.

[Booxtor]

Originally Posted by tuxor

Still, there is no evidence that the glass was not already broken when focus bought the device. The case is different for Ipads where damages to the glass surface are immediately evident because the whole glass surface is always visible without disassembling the device. But in this case from the photos there is no doubt that - if the defect is because of broken glass - it could have been broken or in a bad state from the beginning. If you can't proof the contrary you can't simply invoke the "tradition" that broken glass is never treated as warranty case. This is no legal argument.

By the way, you still have to proof that the glass was already broken before focus handed it over to the parcel service. Since the crack is not in the visible part of the screen the display could have been broken before the glass cracked.

If the glass were already broken, the ereader wouldn't work at all.
Look at this pictures (microsopy) and you can see that a split like above (thiner than a human hair) causes disruption of electrographic layer of the screen.



I have removed the wacom layer (it was fixed by double-sided adhesive tape visible on the pictures below) so you can see now the backside of the screen

Additionaly pictures:

frontside

backside 1

backside 2


you can also see the long split now and severed electric conductors in the bottom right corner .

More evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxg1_...ature=youtu.be

So please stop talking about material faulty.

[tuxor]

Now I get it, I thought we were talking about a rather small crack near the edge of the display. But still: you can't see that crack from outside. This makes the whole situation very dubious. It could also have happened after focus gave the M92 to the parcel service. At the moment it looks like Booxtor is right, since there definitely _is_ a big crack and it definitely looks like caused from pressure on the surface. It's unlikely, but it's not impossible that the screen had a different problem and the crack occured later, e.g. after handing it over to the parcel service...

But now it's maybe the right moment for another statement of focus.

[Defenderland]

I think the proove has been achieved:
The pics "focus" posted show exactly the same malfunction picture as Booxtor shows in his video. In his video he turns the screen and the screen is broken exactly where the display shows the black-white transition beginning in the corner.
The break correponds with the display error.
If the break would have been a result of the transport or otherwise, then the display error and the break would not match.

[focus]

Unfortunately, I don`t have the time to follow this forum all the time, but I am glad that there is some response.
First of all, I want to say that I respect Booxtor and I don`t think that he wants to cheat me. His responses where promt and honest. That was a big part of my decision to buy M92 from his store at the first place. Hopefully, he will show me the same respect.
Second, I lost my hope for warranty repair. This case is impossible to prove for either side. We all know that I won`t be coming to Germany and try to sue ereader-store.de.

I don`t doubt that the screen is broken. I would like to know how it broke!
Even if it started with just a small splinter, for glass, it is expected to propagate over whole surface. I don`t know how big the crack was at the time it stopped working because I wasn`t permitted to open it.

So, hypotheticaly, lets say that you trust me when I say that there was no abuse, intentional or not. Let me get back to the question I started originally because I really don`t know what to do.
a) forget M92 and 400€
b) invest another 200€ and get back the device that broke with no abuse (just pretend that you belive me)
What would you advise me to do?

Why I still believe that it isn`t my fault?
After short searching the web I found this case:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=107156

A lot is going on there and the model is not M92 but the facts relevant to me are:
screen broke with no misuse (again, impossible to prove)
Onyx service is terrible
The device was replaced for free, but on expense of the trader who was not guilty at all. Not the way I would like to finish my case.

Lets think of Onyx quality control.
We all know how models M90 and M91S turned out. Lots of software and hardware problems (IR button, blind spots..). Even Booxtor himself refused to sell them. Onyx didn`t have that problem.
Is it so hard to believe that I got device which was not assembled properly? If Booxtor says that there is no chance for that I will believe him.
From my point of view, I used the device for 2 months and it broke. This was my first ereader, but I know how to handle electrical equipment and I didn`t abuse it (again, I can`t prove that). On the other side, I see the company with practically no quality control. Well, you can say that I knew that in the first place and you are wright. I learned my lesson.

So, to finish this. I gave up on warranty. I would just like an answer to the question that I asked, a or b? What would you do if you believed me?

[Defenderland]

Focus,
you are correct. The crack is no proove that it was your fault. There is indeed the possibility, that the screen was slightly cracked already, when you got it and with a minimum of pressure it broke.

[Booxtor]

Originally Posted by Defenderland

Focus,
you are correct. The crack is no proove that it was your fault. There is indeed the possibility, that the screen was slightly cracked already, when you got it and with a minimum of pressure it broke.

Sorry, but it is impossible. The screen is less than 1mm thick. It is not a kind of carglass. If it splits - the split goes over entire screen.
If you would look more exactly at the pics, you could see the screen is whole of electrical conductors. Even a very smal split would cause severed conductors and therefore non functioning device.

I dont know how it could happen. Screen is stabilized by a solid metal plate. It is quite impossible to bend the device. Only possibility I can imagine - pressing against the screen. I have inspected the device. The device was assembled very accurate. There were no deformations or tensions.
The quality control of Onyx International was improved dramatically in the last time. The screen was produced by PVI and they also have a very strong quality control. They are inspecting every produced screen through a row of hightech machines with lasers, x-rays etc.
Mechanical faulty are therefore virtually excluded. We have sometimes to deal with problems with electronic (very seldom actually) though . But those problems are covered by manufacturers warranty.

[tuxor]

@focus: your dilemma between options a and b is mostly about the question, whether you need a 9.7 inch ereader or not. Was it only an experiment anyway or wasn't the device able to drastically improve your workflow? You can save the 200 dollar for something else then. But in this case, you should be rather sure you won't buy another eink reader in the next 10-15 months, because that will be significantly more expensive and I doubt that the new reader will be much better.

If you loved working with a big ereader and the m92 was really improving your workflow, you should take the investment of the 200 dollars. If you don't, you might miss the advantages of an ereader and decide to buy another one sooner or later. And be warned that _every_ eink reader out there will suffer from the same fragility.

[catharsis]

My question is, if pressure applied to the central area can damage the screen quite easily, is the default cover safe for carrying M92 in a backpack or notebook case or would I need something safer (some cover which has some Plexiglas layer or some metal/wooden box )?

[ignacio ferrer]

Originally Posted by Defenderland

Focus,
you are correct. The crack is no proove that it was your fault. There is indeed the possibility, that the screen was slightly cracked already, when you got it and with a minimum of pressure it broke.

I love these legal discussions by "laypeople".
Beyound the leagal responsibilities of the seller/producer there is something like goodwill(german: Kulanz).
Then this could be applied in not so clear cases.
Anyway: what is the use of a device that breaks so easily?

[tuxor]

Originally Posted by ignacio ferrer

goodwill (german: Kulanz).

I miss that as well. Sold hundreds of M92, only 3 cases of broken screens and that's already too much for "Kulanz"?

Originally Posted by ignacio ferrer

what is the use of a device that breaks so easily?

Intuitively, I would end up asking the same question. But if I think about it, I doubt that the device does really break "so easily". If we have hundreds of M92 without broken screen, how can we still talk about fragility? Do all those hundreds of buyers treat their devices like uncooked eggs? I can't believe that...